10-11-2002 02:04									#61
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Fez You make absolutely no sense what-so-ever... like your beliefs... I provided the 25 page CIA source to back up my beliefs....

There are not only your beliefs Fez.
There are a lot of others.. and they all make sense.
try to be more open to other believes and you will gain a lot.

I can't open your pdf file... as I don't have Acrobat Reader.

But I trust you with that.

----------------
You cannot have war without people dying... that is sad, and I am not promoting war, but with a situation like this where the ignorant left cannot come up with one alternative war must occur!
-------------------

It all depend on the price you are willing to pay.
That's a too high price IMO.

Alternatives can be found... I already said what would be mine... it would be much harder to accomplich, very risky and can easily fail rather than just go there and bomb all Iraq... but at least it would save a lot of lives.
And why not tring it.. if that fail.. and every other alternative fail.. than it would be time for war... but only after every other alternative had been tryied and failed.

Saluti

(gotta go out with Razey and some friends now... see you)

	10-11-2002 02:04									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Iraq's oil productivetuy will raise dramatcially in the event of US occupation." Just run it through the cash flow analysis. I don't think even a doubling of production would alter the analysis one bit.

You and Germany already have.
The oil productiveity ofg Iraq will raise dramatcially (embargo lifted) and your cost will vanish in 1 year, precisely.

quote: "I can only hope that your "allies" will not want to pay again."[/i] Line up who paid last time and ask yourself whether or not these folks will pay this time.

Sure.

Germany. Will not do it unless offered heavy compensations this time


Saudi Arabia - will do it to have the kings stay in power


Japan - I am too uneductaed about Pacific Asia to asnwer this. maybe you can.

	10-11-2002 02:05									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Wouldn't increased oil productivity actually help the Iraqi people? Why is oil so evil? The fact that Iraq could become another United Arab Emirates where the GDP per capita is $20,000 per annum? Dubai is a nice place too.... and Iraq could be like that without Saddam Hussein and a more pro-western regime. The UAE model is probably one that will come up a lot in the future... maybe it should be applied to Iraq?

	10-11-2002 02:06									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Give it up DanS.


It IS financially sound for the US to have a war.

There are some pissble complications thoguh.... I wll not say them for there are too many.


Dont you just love the unqualified and undetermined constituity?

	10-11-2002 02:10									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

GW, my source in HTML format:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...aq_Oct_2002.htm

quote: It all depend on the price you are willing to pay. That's a too high price IMO. Alternatives can be found... I already said what would be mine... it would be much harder to accomplich, very risky and can easily fail rather than just go there and bomb all Iraq... but at least it would save a lot of lives. And why not tring it.. if that fail.. and every other alternative fail.. than it would be time for war... but only after every other alternative had been tryied and failed.

Okay I understand. But I have looked over this situation with a great deal of thinking. I do not propose going to war just because I don't like the person in power... I propose going to war because of what this man is about, and what he stands for. And what Saddam stands for is murder, torture and weapons of mass destruction. That is my base for my beliefs of military action.

I also would like to see precision military action rather than wide spread military action. I don't propose bombing Iraq so it would turn into a lake... rather I want precision yet highly damaging military strikes.

Every other alternative has been tried and it has failed. UN mandates have failed many times.

quote: Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations. Res. 707 (15 August 1991) Requires Iraq to allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. Demands Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests. Res. 715 (11 October 1991) Requires Iraq to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCRs 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring. Res. 1051 (27 March 1996) Established the Iraqi export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items. Res. 1060 (12 June 1996) and Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. Demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCR 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft. Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM. Res. 1284 (17 December 1999) Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD program.

	10-11-2002 02:15									#66
	Put an end to popups!

I leave for an hour and this happens?! Where the heck is this thread going?!

Well, let me try to recollect my points:

1) Iraq is very dense-populated, being ancient Mesopotamia and all. This is not some stroll in the desert: we are talking about fighting through the streets of Baghdad, a city of two million people. Five, six-digit figures of civilians will die. I don't care if this is because "Saddam wants to use his people as shields". This is the moral cost of the war and must be taken into account.

2) People love to pull out examples of Nazi Germany! Germany was appeased... and then WW2 happened. Germany was crushed, then reborn with American help! How nice! (Same for Japan, of course.)
Note, however, that Germany and Japan have many things in common:
* Before the Americans entered, they were already full of well-educated, highly-skilled workers who are experienced and able to sustain a powerful economy.
* They were easily brought back into the fold with a tangled web of alliances, intended at countering a common, terrible enemy - the Reds.
* Most importantly, Germany ended up being Nazi in the first place because its people were defeated, burdened, and burning mad - and saw their government as a crony of their enemy. Hence, usher in the Nazis.

Note that neither point 1 nor point 2 would apply to Iraq, but if the Americans rush in and start shooting in all directions, point 3 most definitely would.

What happens? The Americans will need to occupy Iraq for a VERY LONG time till the rage dies down and the economy gains a semblance of operating. And how would the Christian occupation of the historically richest part of Arab Middle East go down with the Arabs?

3) Taking the above two into account, any war against Iraq should be carefully planned and executed, with minimum loss of civilian life or effect on the Iraqi economy. Anything less would be pointless and repugnant, and would serve neither leftist nor rightist interests.

Hence, my final point: anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

	10-11-2002 02:17									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Uhhh... paiktis22... aren't you forgetting that the war will probably cripple oil production in Iraq for years to come. We saw Saddam torch the Kuwait oil fields as he retreated. If his back is to the wall, he will do the same to his own oil fields.

But that aside, the "numbers" indicate that the US can't make a "profit" with this war. And your assertion that we are only doing this for the oil is just your opinion, with no basis of fact. You are just a one trick pony here, and the pony has come up lame

	10-11-2002 02:17									#68
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

You have failed to make any points. I have posted my evidence and you choose to ignore it.

	10-11-2002 02:20									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ming Uhhh... paiktis22... aren't you forgetting that the war will probably cripple oil production in Iraq for years to come.

It WILL NOT Ming. At least accordning to your own assessments.

Within one year the fields will be up and running and oil production will increase dramatically and with very nice prices for US companies...

quote: But that aside, the "numbers" indicate that the US can't make a "profit" with this war.

You will make huge profits from it in 10 years., Nopt in 2004 but the next years sure.

quote: And your assertion that we are only doing this for the oil is just your opinion, with no basis of fact. You are just a one trick pony here, and the pony has come up lame

Not at all Ming, at least with this one.

	10-11-2002 02:21									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Fez: try to read my posts... at least try.

I said, "anyone who thinks that attacking Iraq right now would solve all problems have absolutely no idea what he's talking about." This unfortunately is the naivete that many rightists indulge in. Let's attack Iraq, and then all those nasty problems will go away!! Saddam would be gone! The Iraqi people will rejoice in freedom and prosperity!

You have posted all the problems we have with Iraq. I told you why your way of solving it would make the matter worse. But you have ignored that.

Wars should be done carefully. Wars have objectives, they have costs: economic, diplomatic, moral. They aren't the catch-all problem solver.

Hence, naive rightists who think that war is the only solution to all problems and will solve all problems should be kept away from governments.

	10-11-2002 02:23									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BTW, Your war will propably start around 2003. But there are many unstable paramteres.

If you dont lioke what I say take it with your own state departnment and some european assesssment risk firms.


Well all is poublished, there is nothing to hol;d back is it?


funny it is all published in greece and not in the US is it?

I bet ther eare these info in the US too...

	10-11-2002 02:24									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ranskaldan: Oh.... well... I see your point... it will solve most of the problems IMO. War is an option and IMO the best option at this point in time. But the US must be there for the Iraqi people afterwards or the US would of failed in its task.

	10-11-2002 02:25									#73
	Support Apolyton

Well yeah... and that's where I'd say that unless war is done carefully, it will certainly create a lot more problems than it solves. Not to mention that thousands will die in a absolutely futile exercise.

	10-11-2002 02:27									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

paiktis22... a lot can happen in ten years.

Plus, we buy oil like everybody else does... at market prices. The short term loss of the Iraq oil fields would jack up oil prices, evening out the some of the long term costs when prices start to drop again. You seem to think that we will be getting oil far below market prices if we defeat Iraq. That isn't going to happen. So again, your WHOLE argument that this is about oil is just a troll and you know it.

	10-11-2002 02:29									#75
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan Well yeah... and that's where I'd say that unless war is done carefully, it will certainly create a lot more problems than it solves. Not to mention that thousands will die in a absolutely futile exercise.

If the US Army has read the Art of War, by Sun Tzu and every other military strategy book... it will be set. Lets hope the strategists in the Defense Department understand what the situation is...

	10-11-2002 02:32									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ming paiktis22... a lot can happen in ten years.

and are assessed Ming

quote: Plus, we buy oil like everybody else does... at market prices.

From Iraq, the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve country, not.

quote: The short term loss of the Iraq oil fields would jack up oil prices,

Yes according to some studies, but they wiol go down the latest within 2 years.

quote: evening out the some of the long term costs when prices start to drop again.

not even close.

the war will cost actually nothing to you and the long (not long - medium) term benefits are huge and cannot be comapred to what you will give in 1 year.

quote: You seem to think that we will be getting oil far below market prices if we defeat Iraq.

both london brenmt and NY oil will fall down, the prices i mean.

quote: That isn't going to happen.

It is if you do it succesfully and unbstable parameters dont get in your way.

thats the whole point

quote: So again, your WHOLE argument that this is about oil is just a troll and you know it.

No its not about thsi one, it is not Ming.

	10-11-2002 02:35									#77
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

My question is this.

if saddam goes away will it be better for iraqis?

my answer is not necessairily based on past history world experience.


your motives, yourr aimjs, and your capabilitites are known.


what is in question is the people of iraq and your uncontrolled poewr.


both of which are up for speculation.

	10-11-2002 02:40									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

paiktis22... you have repeatedly stated in this thread that is all about oil... so yes, it is a one trick troll on your part

Second, you keep implying that we will not lose money on this war. Totally incorrect. At one million per for each smart cruise missle, and the cost for other smart weapons, there is no way we can recoup the costs based soley on a "marginal" cost difference in oil 5 or so years in the future. Again, we pay market prices for oil, so your troll isn't even a good one

	10-11-2002 02:44									#79
	Remove this text

paiktis: This discussion is boring. Just do the math. Or are you unable?

	10-11-2002 02:45									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It is about oil. And it is not aa troll Ming.

You said that the war will cost you.

It will not, hopefully.

Its cost will be between 80 and 140 present US dolars. This cost will be eliminated within 1 to 2 years by the reapi dexploitation of iraqi oil fields anbd the contributions of your "allies".


Market oil prices will fall for you and will go through US companies if you capture Iraq.


Again this is your and european assessment.

It is not a troll and the war is only and precicely because of oil.

If Iraq wasnt the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve country you wouldnt even know here it is.


This aint no troll

	10-11-2002 02:46									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DanS the math has already been done by your state departnement and top european banks.


If you think you can add something then please do.

	10-11-2002 02:48									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

whats boring is your insistance on calling borinmg wehat does not agree with you.


it is your sdtate department and top european banmks assessment.

if yopu, in your infinite investmnent and geostategic wisdom can do any better,

then please, by all means lets hear it fianlly.

	10-11-2002 02:50									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Nahhh... DanS... he is sticking to his illogical troll. Again showing he has no clue about US politics. This is about the continued war on terrorism. While I would be the first to admit that this is a questionable choice on behalf of the Bush administration, that's what this is about. His whole doctrine right now is an anti terrorism war. This is just the continuation of it... right or wrong.

	10-11-2002 02:54									#84
	Got spare money?

I;d say that Bush is uising the terrorism issue Ming.
for oil.


I will not say im 100% sure Iraq has no weapons oif mass destrcution, buit the timing is impecable, nevertheless.

	10-11-2002 02:55									#85
	Put an end to popups!

even if he had, to throw them against the US would suicidale anyway.


this simply doesnt hold water , tha sadam will have and use WMD.

	10-11-2002 03:01									#86
	Remove this text

He is using the war on Terrorism just like any other US politician would... to stay in office.

His strategy is working well... as evidenced by the results of the mid term elections. The Dems went down in defeat big time, and much of it can be attributed to fighting Bush on the issue of the war on terrorism.

You just don't understand how simplistic US politics are. Don't waste your time looking for ulterior motives... it's politics, and that's all it is.

	10-11-2002 03:03									#87
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I wil not diagree nor will i say that US excels in simple politics,


in much smaller scale just look ath greece embergo against fyrom.

but i will say no more cause its not for the presnt time although i have a clear opinion based on facts.




what i say is that it is sure about US politics (same as greece and other counttries) the brave leader to protect us etc etc bullshit.


but it is also about oil.


Ming, the US will get a very nice deal if Iraq was ruled by a proUS regime.

and the war can be succesful if some unstable parameters do not happen.

	10-11-2002 03:12									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well... any deal would be a better one than we have now

But again, you assume that we will get lower than market rates from a pro US regime... it isn't going to happen. We pay market prices from all the pro US regimes in the middle east now... it isn't going to be any different in Iraq...

This is all about staying in office and keeping the Repubs in power... it's not about oil.

	10-11-2002 03:14									#89
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Its is also about oil

maybe more about oil


hear this Ming.



Oil reserves exploited buy the US during a proi US iraq regime will incrasde dramatically.


the poil prices will fall and the ones who will benefit the most will be US oil companies who eill get the deeals for exploration/ exploitationo of iraqi fields if iraw is uner US pro regime.


tis is your assessment. and that of top euro Tw@ats also .

	10-11-2002 03:21									#90
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well duh... since we really aren't getting any oil from Iraq now, I guess even an idiot can speculate that we will be getting more oil from them in the future if there is a pro US regime in charge...

You also seem to be ignoring OPEC. They can start placing restrictions on oil production to keep oil prices at the current level. It's not in their interest to watch oil prices fall, so you can bet your sweet life they will respond in some form or fashion.

So yes, you are wrong. It's all about politics, not economics... and so far so good, it worked for Bush and the Repubs, so he sees no reason to change his strategy at this point.